Ask a Christian Theologian

[PatientGrasshopper]

Sneakypenguin, I propose a more logical conclusion that the Bible makes - God has foreknowledge about everything because he has determined every single action for his own ends. For me it doesn't make sense that God can see the future (as you propose) but does and can do nothing about it - if thats the case then God is weak. However the Bible is CLEAR that God has foreknowledge because of predetermination.[not saying that He can do nothing about the future but that He chooses not to and allows man free will.]

And desires "all to be saved" - language study, who is the "all"? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul defines "all" as "those who belong to Him"

{how can you take the meaning of "all" from one verse and transfer it to another? Words have different meanings do they not? One could also be fair in stating that"all who belong to Him" means those that have placed their faith in Christ not those that God selects}

- and remember, you have to read one verse holistically along with all the others. If John 11 says that Jesus died for the Children of God scattered throughout the World (limited atonement) and 1 John 2 says that Jesus died for the "whole world" (supposedly unlimited atonement) - the logical language study is to say this:
both were written by John.
both were saying the same thing.

Therefore it is fair to say, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but also the (children of God scattered throughout){transfering meaning again}
Thus the one verse that could be seen to uproot limited atonement actually defends it.

And I think you missed my point on God being all knowing but choosing not to predestine .
Some have suggested that the idea of man having a free will is somehow a denial of the sovereignty of God. If it is God who created man with a free will, omnisciently knowing how man will exercise it, omnipresently influencing man to use it for God?s glory and omnipotently holding man responsible for how he exercises the free will, how is His sovereignty denied?

For God to elect those for salvation (and by logic condemn those that arent) is to show that He is not a just and fair God as shown in the scriptures. But it would show malevolence in that he would create people specifically for hell. It also brings no glory or honor to God if man has no free will. IE if people serve you because you make them that means so much less than people having a love for Christ and serving Him

Basically I'm saying yes God does predestinate events He also gave man a choice to pick between choosing to place faith in Him or rejecting Him.
All knowing and all powerful =/= pre-selection for salvation

I put my replies to your post in brackets cause I'm not sure how to separate it into little quote blocks.
Again appologies for not replying in a full manner as i'm in class atm of writing

That was very well put, I shall use this when arguing with Calvinists.

 

[Typecast]

Typecast - can you back up your nihilist conclusion?
Because to me it sounded like your argument was a bunch of conclusions without a premise.

You obviously have NO clue who Jesus is.

Matt 10:34 - "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"

And "a man" - have you read the claims of Jesus?
He repeatedly, emphatically declared and was ultimately killed for saying "I AM GOD"

Dude, Jesus isn't a good teacher if his claims aren't true. He's probably the biggest jerk in the history of the world.
People worship him as God and pray to him as they die. Parents tuck in their children praying to Jesus.
Unless you have actually researched his claims and declare them to be true -
don't crap yourself talking about a man with a message of peace.
Because you believe he's a liar.

I sure do believe he's a liar. But like the great Buddhist scholars, he lies for a reason you don't at first understand. I also believe you seem to have an interesting, if not outright jingoistic sounding opinion about what Christian means. And as for his "I AM GOD" statement, you seem to be as confused as the Pharisees. Jesus is a part of God, one of his three virtues. The first being the Creator, God the Father, the second being Sustainer/Provider/Will/Force(not being starwarsy here) (ugh what a stupid name for it too)Holy Spirit and lastly Redeption, the Son who has redeemed his(the collective's) offspring, man(or humanity to be a little more PC). Now I consider it I was careless in my use of the word 'being', for you see these three aspects are a part of the same entity, which forms the trinity. Sorry, Holy Trinity.

If you think about it in terms of the overarching narrative the sacrifice of the "son" is really a sacrifice on God's part to redeem its mistake at Eden. Then Jesus returns with the miracle of eternal life(Please tell me you supposedly Christian people understand the concept of eternal...*crys*) as compesation to make up for the exile. Jesus is Gods way of admitting he was wrong about the firey vengeance and making peace with humanity(mankind if you're a chauvenist pig).

If you want to throw the words "I bring a sword" around you should be aware of what was meant. The sword was not meant for the enemies of God or Jesus, but his followers who would risk their lives for generations to come following him whilst turning the other cheek.

 

[Trace2010]

I sure do believe he's a liar. But like the great Buddhist scholars, he lies for a reason you don't at first understand. I also believe you seem to have an interesting, if not outright jingoistic sounding opinion about what Christian means. And as for his "I AM GOD" statement, you seem to be as confused as the Pharisees. Jesus is a part of God, one of his three virtues. The first being the Creator, God the Father, the second being Sustainer/Provider/Will/Force(not being starwarsy here) (ugh what a stupid name for it too)Holy Spirit and lastly Redeption, the Son who has redeemed his(the collective's) offspring, man(or humanity to be a little more PC). Now I consider it I was careless in my use of the word 'being', for you see these three aspects are a part of the same entity, which forms the trinity. Sorry, Holy Trinity.

If you think about it in terms of the overarching narrative the sacrifice of the "son" is really a sacrifice on God's part to redeem its mistake at Eden. Then Jesus returns with the miracle of eternal life(Please tell me you supposedly Christian people understand the concept of eternal...*crys*) as compesation to make up for the exile. Jesus is Gods way of admitting he was wrong about the firey vengeance and making peace with humanity(mankind if you're a chauvenist pig).

If you want to throw the words "I bring a sword" around you should be aware of what was meant. The sword was not meant for the enemies of God or Jesus, but his followers who would risk their lives for generations to come following him whilst turning the other cheek.[/quote]

WOW...let's rewind and take this one back from the top.

1)The Trinity:

A) God the Father- all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-terrible, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Liberator to the Hebrews in the time of Ramses II. Gave 1 Law to Adam and Eve, 10 Commandments to Moses, formulator of covenants with the people of Israel

B) God the Son- Jesus Christ, answer to the inevitable truth that it was impossible for humanity to live by the laws of God, to bring a new covenant from the Father to humanity, died on the cross- became intercessor to the Father on behalf of all who invoke His name.

C) God the Spirit- the essence of the Holy Spirit instilled with the Word of God that was bestowed upon the Twelve Apostles (and subsequent apostles) to carry on the teachings of Jesus. In their first appearance, they took on the form of tongues of fire.

2) God did not make the mistake in Eden- Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve kept their immortality until they were chased from Eden for eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil- NOT "TREE OF KNOWLEDGE" as most people mistakenly assume.

3) The sword was not just meaning that. Jesus's parable of the sword in His time was referring to divisions on several levels:
A) The division that Jews would have with Him after believing Him to be the Messiah. He would become the Messiah of the world, but not in a way any man living during His time believed He would be.
B) The divisions within His own apostleship after they found out He would NOT be destroying the Romans to liberate the Jews. This would lead Judas Iscariot to betray Him, and Peter to deny Him three times.
C) The many divisions that would incur as His new covenant was preached and His new church was constructed.

And maybe...just maybe...

D) The fact that said church would be corrupted and subverted by the ways and means of man, causing other churches to break away. This lead to the Great Schizm, and the Reformation.

 

[Girlysprite]

I have a question.

I recently read Exodus; the part where Moses asks the pharao to let his people go; at some point the pharao says yes, but makes him revert that descision time upon time, so that the pharao and his army can be squashed in the red sea later. This is, as written, done so he can show his power as god.

This kind of...irks me in a wrong way. Why make someone act like an ass so you can punish him later for being an ass?

 

[SunoffaBeach]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Your entire argument boils down to equating "should be" with "is." "Oh, I would much prefer if God existed. Therefore, he must!"

TBF, most counter arguments are "Oh, Religion has done some bad things. Therefore, he mustn't or he's a git."

 

[Booze Zombie]

Trace, I direct these questions at you.

By the same standard you applied to science, does Religion also not work? And I mean all religion.

IF God existed, why would be need to reveal himself, judge us, create us only to tell us how to live and think? Does not creating something to live and be free contradict the brainwashing needed for almost all religion?

What created God?! For what purpose would he have been created?

If humans views are flawed and everything we do is marred with inadequacy and mortality (etc), then how do we know of "the perfect one"? Surly such a being is just something created in myth to sustain the morale of the weak-willed and easily motivated?

 

[SunoffaBeach]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

 

[Anoos]

Michael Chrichton said it best in Jurassic Park- paraphrased, "humans had no standard of measurement that would allow them to conceptualize 100 million years ago". Radio carbon dating is still inexact- 10 million years from now, the carbon in the bones of me, you, Chairman Mao, Ghengis Kahn, Shakespeare, Mozart, and Napolean Bonaparte would all register in the same period of time. I am quite sure that scientists are still struggling to put everything in the right order.

Carbon dating isn't the only form of dating that scientists use, it's only good for ~10000 years because the half life of the carbon isotope they use is too short(something like 800 years i think) so it decays too quickly. That's why they use other radioactive isotopes of other element that are common enough but have longer half lifes and can go back to much much more distant times. If you look at Uranium-lead dating, it can go back 2.5 or so billion years with a potential error of around 2 million( ~2%) and thats only one of the techniques that are used.

Anyway that was slightly off topic, back to religion

 

[Lukeje]

So, can we get maggots from meat?
No, I assure you Alex, I am quite lucid in my arguments. Please pardon my overexhuberance.

I believe that science is mankind's attempt to realize complete understanding and control of the world he lives in- a noble ambition to be sure, but one that is always limited to concepts and calculations within the realm of human understanding. This is where science reaches its limitations on what can and cannot be proven as fact- once you get to a scale TOO big, you lose the accuracy of what can be proven.

You do realise that we can do calculations without understanding? It won't be long until we build a computer that can understand things outside of the meta-level we can.
For an example of a meta-level, we need only take a look at one of Escher's woodcuts. While within the two-dimensional framework of the picture, the picture is impossible, we can step back into the 3rd dimension and see that it is very possible. So many of the things that seem impossible to understand now (c.f. Quantum Mechanics) would actually be rather simple to understand on another level of thinking.
What I'm basically trying to say is that science isn't bounded by human experience, it can go much further than that.
Ironically it is on the small scale that things can't be proven; Einstein's relativity serves us well for now, and new theories will eventually arise to take into account the anomalies.

 

[ianuam]

Apologies if these have been asked elsewhere, but it's a damned long thread.
1. If you are a biblical literalist, how do you account for the errors within the bible (i.e continuity/repitition of an event with different viewpoints etc)
2. Do you believe that the bible is valid because it is the word of god? Then how do you get around the circular logic that would seem to invalidate it.
3. Would you kill for your religion.

 

[SunoffaBeach]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

I don't question their faith. All I say is: "You don't KNOW if God exists. You believe it, but you don't know it."
Then they often get confused as if they can't make the difference between knowledge and belief.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

I don't question their faith. All I say is: "You don't KNOW if God exists. You believe it, but you don't know it."
Then they often get confused as if they can't make the difference between knowledge and belief.

Ah, but you're starting with a negative statement. The latter statement says you're dealing with logic, but belief is the knowledge of the heart.

If I say "You don't know if your [live family member] has died when you've been writing your reply." you may not KNOW it to be false, but you definitely BELIEVE/HOPE it to be false.

It's still a shitty thing to say without the corollary.

 

[MrGFunk]

I withdraw all questions because having read your previous answers this thread seems to be fruitless.

 

[Typecast]

Actually hell still exists, but because of Christs resurrection no one goes there anymore.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Actually, XKCD illustrated my point far better today.

 

[SunoffaBeach]

Where does a Theologian draw the line between knowledge and belief?

...still waiting.

Hrrrm...as a theologian, knowledge is information you know to be true, belief is what you believe to be true. The two can conflict or overlap.

Both can be false.

Then why do people get upset when I tell them: "You don't know if God exists?"

Because it's like saying "You don't know if your cat/dog has just got run over.". Faith is strengthened by positive belief, as is love and a number of other insubstantial knowledges. If someone said, "By the way, I've wiped my bum with your controller/keyboard." then you're going to still feel really quite icky, even if you know it to be false.

I don't question their faith. All I say is: "You don't KNOW if God exists. You believe it, but you don't know it."
Then they often get confused as if they can't make the difference between knowledge and belief.

Ah, but you're starting with a negative statement. The latter statement says you're dealing with logic, but belief is the knowledge of the heart.

If I say "You don't know if your [live family member] has died when you've been writing your reply." you may not KNOW it to be false, but you definitely BELIEVE/HOPE it to be false.

It's still a shitty thing to say without the corollary.

You call it "knowledge of the heart" or "unsubstantial knowledge".
But that's NOT the same thing as "knowledge" - not at all.

I believe in alot of things that you probably don't. But I would never tell you that my beliefs are THE TRUTH.

You cannot know if God exists. If you do, you dont need faith.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But I would never tell you that my beliefs are THE TRUTH.

followed by

You cannot know if God exists.

See where the problem lies?